4.8 Review

Microalgal species for sustainable biomass/lipid production using wastewater as resource: A review

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 33, 期 -, 页码 675-688

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.02.026

关键词

Microalgae; Wastewater; Bioenergy; Biomass; Lipid

资金

  1. National Natural Science Fund of China [51138006]
  2. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups [21221004]
  3. Collaborative Innovation Center for Regional Environmental Quality and Shanghai Tongji Gao Tingyao Environmental Science & Technology Development Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using wastewater as resource for microalgal cultivation was seriously considered as a promising approach for sustainable biomass and lipid production. The proper selection of microalgal species is the foundation and key point to achieve this objective. This paper reviewed the recent status of microalgal cultivation in wastewater, including the characteristics of microalgal species used in recent studies, the performance of different microalgal species in different types of wastewater, the commonly-used isolation methods of microalgal species adaptable to the growth in wastewater, and the evaluation criteria of microalgal species. It was found that microalgal biomass and lipid production in wastewater were comparable to those in artificial culture medium, although most of the data was obtained in sterilized wastewater. Among all microalgal species involved in this review, Botryococcus braunii, Chlorella pyrenoidosa and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii showed superior performance in certain studies. However, no microalgal species has been demonstrated to meet all the requirements for large-scale biomass production in wastewater. Thus, the efforts on microalgal species isolation and characterization should still be promoted. On the basis of all the information, this review explored the limitations of recent studies and future research needs on this topic. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据